Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 123831: trouble: broken/fail/pass

[Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>]

On 07/06/18 12:29, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Juergen Gross writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 123831: trouble: 
> broken/fail/pass"):
>> The same host (italia1) that had the failed xtf test yesterday. The two
>> failures are looking very similar to me.
>>
>> Again the question: should we do a force push?
> 
> I think the final decision is up to you, but I would reason along
> these lines:
> 
> The point of the push gate is to stop regressions making it into
> master.  However, osstest cannot currently handle heisenbugs well, so
> it punts: when something is identified as a heisenbug, it is not
> considered a regression.
> 
> 
> There is this failure in 123831
> (3960f3a52346348e6b0306f65d19375612bd35b9, staging)
> 
>  test-xtf-amd64-amd64-5 <job status> broken
>  test-xtf-amd64-amd64-5 4 host-install(4) broken pass in 123670
> 
> This is an infrastructure problem.  It means that that xtf test didn't
> run.  However, each flight runs the same battery of tests on 5
> different hosts; so identical tests were run on other hosts.  We're
> just missing 20% of the XTF test host diversity we would have had.
> 
> So on that basis a force push is justified, because we can see that
> the failure in 123831 does not really give any reason to suspect a
> regression and the test coverage was only slightly reduced compared to
> what was planned.
> 
> 
> However, there are these failures in 123799
> (06f542f8f2e446c01bd0edab51e9450af7f6e05b, master)
> 
>  test-armhf-armhf-xl-arndale
>    5 host-ping-check-native   fail
>    REGR. vs. 123323
> 
> This is very likely the known arndale bug and not a cause for concern.
> 
>  test-amd64-i386-libvirt-qemuu-debianhvm-amd64-xsm
>    14 guest-saverestore.2 fail
>    REGR. vs. 123323b
> 
> This failure is being discussed in email.  Obviously this is not a
> regression from master, since it's *in* master.  But it might be a
> release critical bug.

I'm quite sure it is. OTOH I suspect it should have been addressed
in 4.10 already...

Thinking more about it I believe this is the right time to try
fixing that bug. In case there is no objection I'd like to declare it
as being release critical.

> If it is a release critical bug then branching (and consequently
> opening staging again) might entrench the bug, both by allowing
> effort to go to "shiny new stuff", and by making it harder to fix as
> staging diverges from staging-4.11.

Right.

> So I think overall, I would say this justifies a force push but if the
> reason for wanting a force push was to enable branching, there is an
> actual decision to be made, which is a matter of judgement.

Thanks for the detailed answer, which is more or less following the same
line of thoughts I've had.

So lets wait and see whether there is progress catching the domain save
bug.

Are you fine then to lift the current commit moratorium?


Juergen

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel